M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

TDS at rate of 2%. - General provisions of section 194J are not attracted in this case - Findings of Ld. CIT (A) upheld - Decided against Revenue.” (2) Kodak India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (35

K. THOMAS VARGHESE,PIRAVAM vs. THE ACIT, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri K. Thomas Varghese Acit, Circle - 1 Manakunnathu Aluva Vs. Piravom 686664 Pan – Aaspv5029L Appellant Respondent

35,797/-) is not liable for TDS under section 194A and not an item disallowable U/S 40(a)(i) of the Act. The appellant

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court, no addition was made by the AO on the same payment. The appellant

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court, no addition was made by the AO on the same payment. The appellant

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court, no addition was made by the AO on the same payment. The appellant

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

MM IMPORT AND EXPORT,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mm Import & Export .......... Appellant 709E, Avoly Panchayat, Adooparambu Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam 686661 [Pan: Aaofm2699B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Export & Import Of Timber. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1, Thodupuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 12.12.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) After Making Addition Of Rs. 4,19,849/-

TDS provisions invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 35

M/S ATHAZHAKUNNU MAPPILA L.P. SCHOOL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD TDS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

section 200A(1) of the Act even as there was, prior to 01.6.2015, no provision for the said levy while processing a TDS return u/s. 200A(1) of the Act, which 1 ITA Nos. 911& 912/Coch/2022 (AY 2014-15) Athazhakunnu Mappilla L.P. School v. ITO came on the statute only by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. from that date. The issue

M/S ATHAZHAKUNNU MAPPILA L.P SCHOOL,KANNUR vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

section 200A(1) of the Act even as there was, prior to 01.6.2015, no provision for the said levy while processing a TDS return u/s. 200A(1) of the Act, which 1 ITA Nos. 911& 912/Coch/2022 (AY 2014-15) Athazhakunnu Mappilla L.P. School v. ITO came on the statute only by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. from that date. The issue

MOHAMMED TARIQ THAIMADATHIL,KOCHI vs. THE ITO , NON CORP WARD 1(5), KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Mohammed Tariq Thaimadathil, Vs. Ito, Tariq Manzil, Elmkunnapuzha Road, Non Corporate Ward – 1(5), Kaloor, Kochi. Cochin – 682 107. Pan : Abrpt 7993 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior Ar. Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav:

35 has explained the cause of delay and pointed out that the order of Ld CIT(A) was sent via email to the assessee, which mode of service has been refused by the assessee in From-35 and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal before us. 3. The learned DR opposed the prayer of the assessee

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 139”. The assessee also submitted that though the amendment made effective from 01.04.2010 it is retrospectively applicable as it is curative in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and accordingly upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: George George K.

TDS), Kozhikode. Meenchanda, Kozhikode. [PAN:AABCP 3576A] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue by Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CA Assessee by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2017 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: George George K.

TDS), Kozhikode. Meenchanda, Kozhikode. [PAN:AABCP 3576A] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue by Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CA Assessee by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2017 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: George George K.

TDS), Kozhikode. Meenchanda, Kozhikode. [PAN:AABCP 3576A] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue by Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CA Assessee by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2017 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

Section 10 of the IT Act. 5 AAAAL0822C LBS CENTRE 64,44,687 No proof submitted for non- 644,469/- FOR SCIENCE deduction of Tax at source. AND TECHNOLOG Y Total 15,16,688/- Accordingly demanded TDS of Rs. 15,16,688/- along with interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act of Rs. 13,22,784/- vide order dated

M/S.FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KCHI, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

35,520/- and as a result, there was short disallowance, i.e., 30% of the said amount, u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Ld.ITO. In view of such an omission and no enquiry made by the Ld.ITO in connection with said short deduction of TDS, the Pr.CIT set aside the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 with directions

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

35 & 36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

35 & 36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201